Talk:Merit (Buddhism)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting this review now, please reply to my comments below as you continue to work on the article so we can keep a good record of the communicaiton flow. Thank you for working so hard editing this article. I'll try to keep my review organized using the same headers as in the article.  DoctorG  (talk)  02:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , it is very kind of you to take upon yourself such a large article. I am still a bit dissatisfied as to its final form, so I am happy to hear your comments and would appreciate it if we can get it to GA. I will be a bit busy today, but I will try to get to applying your feedback asap.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll keep looking through it and adding my notes here. DoctorG  (talk)  13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall
considering NPOV, are there any dissenting views within Budhissm that differ from the ones presented in this article?  DoctorG  (talk)  02:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Content-wise, I have always tried to show all views with regard to the role and meaning of the concept of merit in Buddhism. I do not believe I have have left anything out, and you will find many sections that discuss criticism and counter-views. With regard to the research I did to write this article, I did not do any cherry-picking: I have used all views I could find on the topic, provided some reliability and notability could be established.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thougts on this. My initial read through it loked like NPOV was an issue but as I dig deeper, I think you adressed this pretty well.  DoctorG  (talk)  15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On a similar note though, I have often left out phrases like "it is believed by Buddhists that...". If you think the skeptical tone of the article will improve if I do add more of such statements, I can do so.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to do that, plus it would probably add some abiguity to the article. DoctorG  (talk)  13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Take a good look at the punctuation throughout; a lot of commas are missing.  DoctorG  (talk)  03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you give a few examples? I have tried just now, but I am afraid my knowledge of English grammar is insufficient to discover these mistakes by myself.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading through the article again and I don't see any obvious ones now; it look's like you got the ones that stood out ot me.

Several different forms of Budhism (Mahāyāna, etc.) are mentioned throughout the article but it is hard for the reader to follow how everything is interconnected. Perhaps a sub-section within "definition" that introduces these different forms would be helpful.  DoctorG  (talk)  03:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now added some phrases to explain that these are different main schools of Buddhism, and have also tried to clarify from the start that Pali Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. I have also added examples of countries when I mention the main schools for the first time. Will this be sufficient?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more clear now, thanks for those changes. DoctorG  (talk)  15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead
criticism is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear to be discussed with much weight in the article  DoctorG  (talk)  02:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you already addressed this in an earlier section. DoctorG  (talk)  15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition
The initial definition in this section seems to conflict with opening line of the 2nd paragraph in the same section.  DoctorG  (talk)  02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the difference by rephrasing it: the first is a literal translation from the Pali language, the second is a definition from an anthropologist.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work, it synchs up well now. DoctorG  (talk)  13:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Readers may not know what Pali is, it needs to be defined in the text.  DoctorG  (talk)  02:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed. DoctorG  (talk)  15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear what papa has to do with Merit in regards ot its commonality in the Pali tradition.  DoctorG  (talk)  03:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the opposite—opposites help to define a concept. Papa is more commonly used as apunna, but they are synonyms and opposite of merit. I have simplified the text by cutting out the phrase about Theravada. An earlier sentence already provided the Theravadin context.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing this up. DoctorG  (talk)  14:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The final sentence in this section is uncler as written, consider rewording or using semi-colons. <span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased the sentence about water and merit transfer. That is the sentence you meant, right?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * perfect, thanks <span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  14:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your initial discussion on merit makes it sound like this term is no longer used within Christianity. I suggest you reword the sentence and change "latter part of the twentieth century gradually been used" to "latter part of the twentieth century, also been used" or something similar. <span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion in traditional texts
define the eight-fold path in this section instead of later in the article. Terms should be defined when first used. <span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  03:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In modern society
consider breaking this section up into a chronological order to show past history and lead towards current practices. <span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  03:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

, I am awaiting your further comments.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe this article now meets the requirements for a good article and I will mark it as such. Thanks for working so hard to make Wikipedia a better place!<span style="font-family:Segoe print;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;color:#336699;text-shadow:grey 4px 4px 8px;"> DoctorG  (talk)  14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, ! I appreciate it, as reviewers for articles on religion are hard to come by. Any tips for a Did You Know... entry for this article? --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)